Tweet
There is widespread reportage of the government having to cave in to a European Court ruling which gives prisoners the right to vote. This is of relevance to anyone facing either a prison sentence, or the possibility of one.
As one newspaper clearly don't like to print facts, here's the letter I sent them.
"Dear Sirs
RE Editorial, Patrick Flynn, prisoners vote.... oh, and the facts
Your newspaper goes to great lengths to highlight the injustices of other countries and the hypocrisy of dictators, presidents, companies and individuals. However, when it comes to the reportage of news and facts you are without doubt the world leader in hypocrisy yourselves. By giving out one-sided information you run the risk of feeding the insecurities of the inbred section of your readership which, unfortunately, is a large chunk. I refer to your headline of today, full of spite, about the legal ruling to give the right of voting to prisoners, a ruling which was made six years ago.
If you had any intention of reporting the news either factually, accurately or impartially you would have mentioned that until now the prison population's vote has been quietly taken by the party in power at each and every election. At over 80,000 votes that's not a small number to be sniffed, especially if you are in Opposition and are 80,000 votes down before even the polling booths open. What a pity that wasn’t mentioned in your article. It would not be so bad if prisoners’ votes were just voided, not taken by anyone, but they have actually been stolen by the party in power all these years. That makes it worse, the thief is on the wrong side of the bars.
Furthermore, you go to great lengths to highlight “murderers, rapists, and paedophiles.” Why? Or are you down to a two-tier definition of “prisoner” now – it’s okay to not list perjurors, thugs or thieves in there because you’d rather the inbreeds concentrate on hating just the usual few? In that case, how many vigilante actions have your words been responsible for? But that’s okay, in your ivory tower why should you care what your words cause? Oh, and isn’t that hypocrisy, coming from a newspaper who shouts that prisoners shouldn’t have the vote because it might affect others, while continuing an insidious hate campaign, knowing that it won't be YOU it affects?
While we’re on the subject, Patrick Flynn mentioned in his article on the editorial page that you have to actually commit a fairly heinous crime to see the inside of a prison. Sorry, but you’re both wrong. "R" hates "D" and has waged a vendetta against him for years. Reasons why are unclear. R has a teenage daughter, "A." R realises that money can be made by accusing D of attempted intercourse with his daughter, A. No facts offered, none required. At trial, no dates, times or places were given, so D could not defend himself. Jury finds him guilty. R and A walk away, with A receiving compensation of over £16,000. Still think you have to have actually committed an offence??
The truth is you only have to be accused, and for the twelve numpties to (literally) not like the look of you for you to be pronounced guilty, no matter how much evidence has been put before them showing you are innocent.
And you have no legal recourse against numpties and their without-basis decision.
But what is most sickening about this whole prisoner vote issue is not that prisoners are getting the vote – but the fact that it has taken SIX WHOLE YEARS for this corrupt country to obey it.
But I guess the reason you really brought up the subjects was because you wanted to highlight either the injustice of the ruling, or the hypocrisy in prisoners having the vote. If you really, really want to know why this country is so corrupt, read your own garbage. Broken Britain? We have a legal system that’s so one-sided and disinterested in the truth as to be unjust and unfair at best, corrupt at worst. Yet not one person in authority is in the least bit interested in a total overhaul. (Maybe when an MP’s son finds himself falsely accused of something then there’ll be a sudden incentive to overhaul the system).
We have at least one police force here which is as bent as a three-pound note from ground level upwards, politicians who flog us for every penny possible while giving it to prosperous Far Eastern countries, and Editors who would rather give out disinformation because the truth hurts.
It's frankly a bit much to be part of a dishonest country and then b*tch about how corrupt everyone else is. Why not try to do something to change it? Instead of moaning that a sentence was not long enough, try looking to see if the person was actually guilty, NOT just because the legal system "says so." Instead of beefing that prisoners get the vote, ask yourselves Why has it taken this long? In this so-called permissive, civilised society, why did this country have to be taken to an outside court and ordered to hand over the right, when we give rights to just about everybody else without a word. Surely the fact that we didn't automatically give them the right is a scandal in itself, if we are supposed to stand for fairness, honesty and all the rest of the things which are not actually true about today's Britain.
You’re keeping it going. But that’s okay. You’re hypocrites, so why should something you do to others cause you any loss of sleep? There's an undercurrent attitude of kick people until they’re down. And then to keep kicking.
Night Night.
*** ******
Oh, I don't expect you to print this, because you couldn't cope with your readers facing some facts. But I will run it on websites for those who have been Falsely Accused, where people have already seen just how "honest" Britain of today actually is."
As one newspaper clearly don't like to print facts, here's the letter I sent them.
"Dear Sirs
RE Editorial, Patrick Flynn, prisoners vote.... oh, and the facts
Your newspaper goes to great lengths to highlight the injustices of other countries and the hypocrisy of dictators, presidents, companies and individuals. However, when it comes to the reportage of news and facts you are without doubt the world leader in hypocrisy yourselves. By giving out one-sided information you run the risk of feeding the insecurities of the inbred section of your readership which, unfortunately, is a large chunk. I refer to your headline of today, full of spite, about the legal ruling to give the right of voting to prisoners, a ruling which was made six years ago.
If you had any intention of reporting the news either factually, accurately or impartially you would have mentioned that until now the prison population's vote has been quietly taken by the party in power at each and every election. At over 80,000 votes that's not a small number to be sniffed, especially if you are in Opposition and are 80,000 votes down before even the polling booths open. What a pity that wasn’t mentioned in your article. It would not be so bad if prisoners’ votes were just voided, not taken by anyone, but they have actually been stolen by the party in power all these years. That makes it worse, the thief is on the wrong side of the bars.
Furthermore, you go to great lengths to highlight “murderers, rapists, and paedophiles.” Why? Or are you down to a two-tier definition of “prisoner” now – it’s okay to not list perjurors, thugs or thieves in there because you’d rather the inbreeds concentrate on hating just the usual few? In that case, how many vigilante actions have your words been responsible for? But that’s okay, in your ivory tower why should you care what your words cause? Oh, and isn’t that hypocrisy, coming from a newspaper who shouts that prisoners shouldn’t have the vote because it might affect others, while continuing an insidious hate campaign, knowing that it won't be YOU it affects?
While we’re on the subject, Patrick Flynn mentioned in his article on the editorial page that you have to actually commit a fairly heinous crime to see the inside of a prison. Sorry, but you’re both wrong. "R" hates "D" and has waged a vendetta against him for years. Reasons why are unclear. R has a teenage daughter, "A." R realises that money can be made by accusing D of attempted intercourse with his daughter, A. No facts offered, none required. At trial, no dates, times or places were given, so D could not defend himself. Jury finds him guilty. R and A walk away, with A receiving compensation of over £16,000. Still think you have to have actually committed an offence??
The truth is you only have to be accused, and for the twelve numpties to (literally) not like the look of you for you to be pronounced guilty, no matter how much evidence has been put before them showing you are innocent.
And you have no legal recourse against numpties and their without-basis decision.
But what is most sickening about this whole prisoner vote issue is not that prisoners are getting the vote – but the fact that it has taken SIX WHOLE YEARS for this corrupt country to obey it.
But I guess the reason you really brought up the subjects was because you wanted to highlight either the injustice of the ruling, or the hypocrisy in prisoners having the vote. If you really, really want to know why this country is so corrupt, read your own garbage. Broken Britain? We have a legal system that’s so one-sided and disinterested in the truth as to be unjust and unfair at best, corrupt at worst. Yet not one person in authority is in the least bit interested in a total overhaul. (Maybe when an MP’s son finds himself falsely accused of something then there’ll be a sudden incentive to overhaul the system).
We have at least one police force here which is as bent as a three-pound note from ground level upwards, politicians who flog us for every penny possible while giving it to prosperous Far Eastern countries, and Editors who would rather give out disinformation because the truth hurts.
It's frankly a bit much to be part of a dishonest country and then b*tch about how corrupt everyone else is. Why not try to do something to change it? Instead of moaning that a sentence was not long enough, try looking to see if the person was actually guilty, NOT just because the legal system "says so." Instead of beefing that prisoners get the vote, ask yourselves Why has it taken this long? In this so-called permissive, civilised society, why did this country have to be taken to an outside court and ordered to hand over the right, when we give rights to just about everybody else without a word. Surely the fact that we didn't automatically give them the right is a scandal in itself, if we are supposed to stand for fairness, honesty and all the rest of the things which are not actually true about today's Britain.
You’re keeping it going. But that’s okay. You’re hypocrites, so why should something you do to others cause you any loss of sleep? There's an undercurrent attitude of kick people until they’re down. And then to keep kicking.
Night Night.
*** ******
Oh, I don't expect you to print this, because you couldn't cope with your readers facing some facts. But I will run it on websites for those who have been Falsely Accused, where people have already seen just how "honest" Britain of today actually is."